McAfee Secure

Exam Code: JN0-364

Exam Name: Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP)

Certification Provider: Juniper

Questions & Answers

Juniper JN0-364 Questions & Answers

Study with Up-To-Date REAL Exam Questions and Answers from the ACTUAL Test

Questions & Answers

69 Questions & Answers with Testing Engine

"Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP) Exam", also known as JN0-364 exam, is a Juniper certification exam.

Pass your tests with the always up-to-date JN0-364 Exam Engine. Your JN0-364 training materials keep you at the head of the pack!

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Was: $137.49
Now: $124.99

Juniper JN0-364 Practice Test 15

Question 140

At fictional Ironwood Transit, during a carrier peering cutover, engineers report: A service provider expects nonstop active routing from a backup RE, but only chassis switchover resilience was configured. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The prefix SID is advertised and all ingress routers compute consistent transport label behavior for the node destination.
  2. A controlled link or peer failure causes BFD Down and timely routing reconvergence rather than waiting for long protocol timers.
  3. During a controlled primary RE loss, eligible routing adjacencies continue using state maintained by the backup RE.
  4. Every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

During a controlled primary RE loss, eligible routing adjacencies continue using state maintained by the backup RE. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The check is meaningful for segment routing prefix SID, but it does not prove that NSR protocol state replication was repaired. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.

B:

A controlled link or peer failure causes BFD Down and timely routing reconvergence rather than waiting for long protocol timers. That establishes BFD fast failure detection rather than a repaired NSR protocol state replication path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: during a controlled primary RE loss, eligible routing adjacencies continue using state maintained by the backup RE.

D:

Every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior. That establishes LACP aggregation consistency rather than a repaired NSR protocol state replication path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: during a controlled primary RE loss, eligible routing adjacencies continue using state maintained by the backup RE.

Question 141

During a metro aggregation ring at fictional Sprucewell Transit, the team observes: A customer-facing edge port accidentally connects to another switch that begins sending BPDUs and threatens the access topology. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Root protection blocks acceptance of an unexpected superior root across designated boundary ports; it is not the same as BPDU edge protection.
  2. Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.
  3. IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.
  4. Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to enable the supported BPDU protection behavior on designated edge ports so unexpected BPDUs trigger a controlled protective response.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Root protection blocks acceptance of an unexpected superior root across designated boundary ports; it is not the same as BPDU edge protection. Those conditions do not account for the specific RSTP edge BPDU protection problem reported by Sprucewell Transit.

C:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IS-IS route redistribution policy, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for RSTP edge BPDU protection. The relevant distinction is: edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting RSTP loop protection, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for RSTP edge BPDU protection. The relevant distinction is: edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.

Question 142

A fictional service-provider team at Northshore Digital is reviewing a network change window. The finding is: An aggregation policy announces a summary after all contributing more-specific routes vanish, misleading a downstream provider during an outage. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Only the selected traffic uses the inspection forwarding table while unmatched traffic follows the ordinary destination route.
  2. The shared connected route exists in both intended RIBs without broadly importing unrelated customer prefixes.
  3. A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets.
  4. The aggregate is active only with the expected contributors and disappears when the contributor precondition is removed.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The aggregate is active only with the expected contributors and disappears when the contributor precondition is removed. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Only the selected traffic uses the inspection forwarding table while unmatched traffic follows the ordinary destination route. It would validate a separate filter-based forwarding table selection operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the aggregate is active only with the expected contributors and disappears when the contributor precondition is removed.

B:

The check is meaningful for RIB group route sharing, but it does not prove that aggregate route contributor was repaired. An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.

C:

A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets. That establishes GRES preserves forwarding not protocols rather than a repaired aggregate route contributor path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the aggregate is active only with the expected contributors and disappears when the contributor precondition is removed.

Question 143

The operations group at fictional Sprucewell Transit, working on a dual-stack transit pilot, finds: After a core migration, a node SID is missing from the IGP advertisement and ingress nodes cannot build the intended SR-MPLS path. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. MPLS forwards using labels: ingress commonly pushes labels, intermediate LSRs swap them, and the egress removes the remaining label.
  2. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet.
  3. RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient.
  4. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to align prefix-SID advertisements and SRGB interpretation on the participating routers and verify labels assigned for the FEC.

Incorrect Answers

A:

MPLS forwards using labels: ingress commonly pushes labels, intermediate LSRs swap them, and the egress removes the remaining label. That describes MPLS label push swap pop, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by segment routing prefix SID; it does not predict the reported behavior.

B:

Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet. That describes filter-based forwarding table selection, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by segment routing prefix SID; it does not predict the reported behavior.

C:

RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient. Those conditions do not account for the specific segment routing prefix SID problem reported by Sprucewell Transit.

Question 144

At fictional Everfield Rail, during a virtual-router integration, engineers report: A router running IS-IS discovers adjacent nodes but the IPv6 unicast routes never populate the IPv6 routing table. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Enable and inspect the relevant IS-IS IPv6 address-family reachability advertisements and verify eligible routes.
  2. Enable compatible OSPFv3 IPv6 operation on the intended peers and validate neighbor and route state.
  3. Specify a reachable IPv6 next hop with correct interface scope where required and verify IPv6 route installation.
  4. Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Enable and inspect the relevant IS-IS IPv6 address-family reachability advertisements and verify eligible routes. This treats the fault shown by Everfield Rail: IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute. Confirm success when IPv6 reachability TLVs are exchanged and peers install the intended IPv6 routes independently of IPv4 reachability.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Enable compatible OSPFv3 IPv6 operation on the intended peers and validate neighbor and route state. That could help in a case involving OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability. This failure instead depends on IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs; IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute.

C:

The proposal changes IPv6 static next-hop scope; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs unresolved even if its own test passed. IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute.

D:

The proposal changes OSPF area LSA propagation; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs unresolved even if its own test passed. IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute.

Question 145

During a provider-edge service migration at fictional Tidewater Hosting, the team observes: After a provider port migration, stacked-tag frames drop because the logical units do not match the expected flexible VLAN tag form. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Include tagged maximum-frame-size tests and hardware interface MTU limits in service acceptance.
  2. Validate accepted tag stacks and logical-unit counters when deploying a multi-service port.
  3. Validate VLAN-to-IRB bindings, gateway ARP or neighbor entries, and allowed cross-VLAN flows after provisioning.
  4. Audit network type against actual link topology during edge circuit deployment.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Validate accepted tag stacks and logical-unit counters when deploying a multi-service port. This monitors the behavior that failed at Tidewater Hosting; the most useful acceptance signal is that the correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Include tagged maximum-frame-size tests and hardware interface MTU limits in service acceptance. That ongoing check is for provider bridging MTU overhead; it would not reliably detect recurrence of flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.

C:

The control protects integrated routing and bridging. It does not establish the ongoing flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment behavior required in this network. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.

D:

This is a useful guard against OSPF point-to-point topology, but it is not scoped to the observed flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment failure. An appropriate test would show that the correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.

Question 146

A fictional service-provider team at Northbay Telecom is reviewing a carrier peering cutover. The finding is: A multi-exit AS expects a specific inbound link, but peers make a different choice when MED is compared out of the intended context. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Test MED behavior in realistic same-neighbor-AS scenarios and monitor actual received path attributes.
  2. Continuously diff effective import/export policies against approved prefix filters and peer relationships.
  3. Validate local-AS and peer-AS inventory against change requests before activating external sessions.
  4. Validate VLAN-to-IRB bindings, gateway ARP or neighbor entries, and allowed cross-VLAN flows after provisioning.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Test MED behavior in realistic same-neighbor-AS scenarios and monitor actual received path attributes. This monitors the behavior that failed at Northbay Telecom; the most useful acceptance signal is that comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This is a useful guard against BGP import export control, but it is not scoped to the observed BGP MED neighbor consideration failure. An appropriate test would show that comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.

C:

This is a useful guard against BGP ASN and OPEN negotiation, but it is not scoped to the observed BGP MED neighbor consideration failure. An appropriate test would show that comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.

D:

This is a useful guard against integrated routing and bridging, but it is not scoped to the observed BGP MED neighbor consideration failure. An appropriate test would show that comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.

Question 147

The operations group at fictional Coppercrest Cloud, working on a metro aggregation ring, finds: Neighboring IS-IS devices exchange physical frames but one interface is Level 1-only while the peer runs Level 2-only. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding.
  2. The expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.
  3. The two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability.
  4. The Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding. It would validate a separate MAC address learning and moves operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.

C:

The two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability. That establishes IS-IS LSP database synchronization rather than a repaired IS-IS adjacency circuit level path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.

D:

The check is meaningful for IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability, but it does not prove that IS-IS adjacency circuit level was repaired. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.

Question 148

At fictional Valleycrest Internet, during a multi-tenant service turn-up, engineers report: A transport uplink must carry multiple VLANs, but it is left in access mode and forwards only the untagged access VLAN. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Use a generated route with the intended contributor policy and verify the selected qualifying route supplies usable forwarding behavior.
  2. Configure the appropriate provider bridge service tag and preserve customer inner tags across the carrier handoff.
  3. Bind the correct VLAN bridge domain to its intended IRB routed interface and verify gateway addressing and routing.
  4. Set access or trunk interface mode to match the attached device and approved VLAN membership.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Set access or trunk interface mode to match the attached device and approved VLAN membership. This treats the fault shown by Valleycrest Internet: access ports and trunk ports have different VLAN tagging and membership behaviors; link-up state does not make the modes equivalent. Confirm success when hosts receive the intended untagged frames and trunk links carry the specified VLAN tags with correct membership.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Use a generated route with the intended contributor policy and verify the selected qualifying route supplies usable forwarding behavior. That could help in a case involving generated route qualified next hop. This failure instead depends on VLAN access trunk distinction; access ports and trunk ports have different VLAN tagging and membership behaviors; link-up state does not make the modes equivalent.

B:

The proposal changes provider Q-in-Q tagging; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave VLAN access trunk distinction unresolved even if its own test passed. Access ports and trunk ports have different VLAN tagging and membership behaviors; link-up state does not make the modes equivalent.

C:

Bind the correct VLAN bridge domain to its intended IRB routed interface and verify gateway addressing and routing. Its normal acceptance signal would be hosts reach the expected IRB gateway and traffic between approved subnets is routed rather than bridged blindly. Here the deciding check is different: hosts receive the intended untagged frames and trunk links carry the specified VLAN tags with correct membership.

Question 149

During a redundant core router pair at fictional Deltawood Hosting, the team observes: A customer subnet loses its default gateway after the active router fails because the backup never assumes the virtual IP role. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.
  2. VRRP coordinates an active virtual default gateway among participating routers, unlike independent physical interface addresses.
  3. Graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine.
  4. RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

VRRP coordinates an active virtual default gateway among participating routers, unlike independent physical interface addresses. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to align VRRP group, virtual gateway addressing and priority settings and verify master-to-backup handover.

Incorrect Answers

A:

NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers. That describes NSR protocol state replication, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by VRRP virtual gateway failover; it does not predict the reported behavior.

C:

Graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine. That describes graceful restart peer assistance, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by VRRP virtual gateway failover; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding. Those conditions do not account for the specific VRRP virtual gateway failover problem reported by Deltawood Hosting.

Question 150

A fictional service-provider team at Foxglove Broadband is reviewing a regional backbone upgrade. The finding is: IPv6 routes vanish after OSPFv3 was configured on one side of a link while the peer runs only OSPFv2. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Validate MST digest and instance mapping consistency as part of configuration review.
  2. Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies.
  3. Validate next-hop address scope and outbound interface for static IPv6 routes during deployment.
  4. Check IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacencies and learned prefixes separately from IPv4 OSPFv2 health.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Check IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacencies and learned prefixes separately from IPv4 OSPFv2 health. This monitors the behavior that failed at Foxglove Broadband; the most useful acceptance signal is that the expected OSPFv3 neighbor reaches Full and IPv6 routes appear with intended next hops.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Validate MST digest and instance mapping consistency as part of configuration review. The monitored boundary differs from OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. OSPFv3 provides OSPF routing for IPv6; successful IPv4 OSPFv2 peering does not establish an IPv6 adjacency.

B:

This is a useful guard against IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering, but it is not scoped to the observed OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability failure. An appropriate test would show that the expected OSPFv3 neighbor reaches Full and IPv6 routes appear with intended next hops.

C:

The control protects IPv6 static next-hop scope. It does not establish the ongoing OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability behavior required in this network. OSPFv3 provides OSPF routing for IPv6; successful IPv4 OSPFv2 peering does not establish an IPv6 adjacency.

Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP) (JN0-364) Practice Tests